Appendix E: The Absolute Reference Frame Within Special Relativity

The Augustus Barto O'Barr and Lola May Peppers Family

HTML Version 2.0

copyright 1995 by Gerald L. O'Barr

INTRODUCTION:

Special Relativity (SR) is simple. It is simple in its
mathematics. It is simple in its results. But it is not always
simple to understand. In fact, it is my belief that no one, as
yet, fully understands relativity. This understanding is
important and we will have to understand relativity before we can
make any further meaningful progress.

To me, the first thing to understand about SR is that it has
very little physics. In fact, it ought to even be said that SR
is not physics. We certainly must recognize that relativity does
not provide us with all the physics we need to understand it.

Special Relativity is mainly a measurement science. It
tells us how to make our measurements. We must work within one
or more inertial reference frames. We must use ruler grids
within these frames. We must set up local clocks along these
grids. We must synchronize these clocks in a particular way.
The measurements made with these tools, used in the right way,
will then give us the results as predicted by relativity. And
what are the results predicted by relativity: The measured
lengths of rulers and the measured rates of clocks will change
with their relative velocities.

Please note, relativity at no time tells us why any of this
is true, or even if any changes actually occur. Relativity does
not tell us that dimensions actually change with velocity, or
clocks change their rates. In fact, relativity does not state
anything about what actually happens. It only tells us what is
measured. Since the tools that are used in relativity appear to
be able to change in their properties, then the results obtained
in measurements using these tools might be a combination of real
changes on top of the changes in the tools. To have real
physics, we must know both. The physics must know what real
changes occur in the thing being measured and the changes in the
tools. Just knowing the final readings on changeable tools does
not tell us the full story. Again, there is almost no physics in
SR. It is only a measurement science. It only tells us final
measurement results. It never tells us what actually happens.

Now of course a measurement science is important. No
advancement can be made without a valid measurement system. But
a measurement system is not necessarily the physics. The physics
in SR is really very minimal, and this point should not be
unappreciated or underrated.

BASIC PHYSICS:

Well, what is the physics? The physics is as simple as
relativity itself. There is an absolute reference frame. In
this absolute reference frame, the length, L, of all rulers, in
the direction of their velocity, changes with their absolute
velocity, v. The ratio of this length, L, with respect to the
length at absolute rest, Lo, is:

( 1 - v^2/c^2) ^.5

Here, c is the absolute velocity of light as measured in the
absolute frame. The rates of all clocks follow this same ratio.\

This is it. This is all the physics that is needed.

But one might be tempted to say that this is no different
than the relativity now taught. But no. This understanding of
relativity clearly and directly separates out real changes from
that which is measured. At no time is anyone confused as to
which clock slows down, and as to which one does not. For the
paradox of the twins, there is never a question as to which twin
gets old, and why. All questions immediately disappear. There
are no more paradoxes for any known problem.

All of this is important, important enough to consider this
scary re-introduction of an absolute reference frame.

In this absolute reference frame, any moving inertia
reference frame can set up a measurement system of rulers and
clocks that will measure exactly what relativity predicts. The
speed of all photons, in this moving frame, will be measured to
be exactly c. It will do this not because that is the real
velocity, but because it will be the measured velocity. It will
happen because the rulers and clocks that are being used in this
moving frame will have changed sufficiently to exactly cancel out
all components of the absolute velocity.

Knowing all this, we immediately see that there are no time
problems. No one can go backwards or forward in time. Any of
these affects are merely changes in the settings of clocks as
they are readjusted to meet simultaneity requirements for certain
situations. By keeping tract of real changes verses measured
changes, we never see any real loss of time or continuity. for
all you space nuts, I am sorry. All you "back in time" travel
nuts are left with absolutely nothing.

I am sure that all this is simple enough that everyone
should understand it. Still, no one probably will believe it.
But it does work. The At theory provides the explanation as to
what this absolute frame consists of, and how it allows particles
to appear to move through space without hinderance. I encourage
all to study the At theory. It also is simple. It merely uses
the second set of solutions to the collision equation, where
changes in mass can be experienced in a Newtonian way.

This allows the introduction of a new variable, a non-linear
variable at that, and with all this, the first introduction of
forces in a conservative system. Isn't this all great? How
could anyone not want to see all this work?

INTRODUCTION TO THE ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME:

The absolute frame of reference is not a new subject.
Before relativity, and even during the early days of relativity,
it was given a great deal of consideration. Today, however, it
is no longer considered to be a scientific subject. The Theory
of Relativity is assumed to have "answered" this problem in that
no absolute reference frame appears to be necessary, and so it is
no longer of a scientific concern. Any reference frame appears
to be equal to any other reference frame, and so it is felt that
there is no longer any meaning to the concept of an absolute
reference. This is all true, but it is true only on a
mathematical level. On the physical level, there can only be one
reference frame upon which all things are controlled or governed

It must be made clear that there was no proof that there was
no absolute frame, the situation was only that there was no proof
that there was one. At least no proof of the particular type of
absolute reference frame for which they were looking. Therefore,
to find or assume that there is an absolute reference frame would
not really change any known data or scientific experiment if the
absolute reference frame perfectly mimic these presently assumed
changes in rates of clocks and lengths of rulers.

For some time, some individuals were of a mind to believe
that no real changes in lengths of rulers and rates of clocks
occurred. They were only "tricks" being played on us. However,
I believe that we now have proof that there are real changes that
occur.

This information is found in the "paradox of the twins."
This "paradox" is now stated to be true, and if true, it becomes
a real paradox. It proves, for its particular situation, that
velocity is not always totally relative and it proves that real
changes occur with clocks, changes which are different for one
clock than another even when they have identical, relative
velocities. If real changes occur with clocks, then real changes
must also occur with rulers. If clocks or rulers are really
changing, it becomes imperative that a cause be sought for these
changes, not only to account for these changes, but why these
changes can be different for clocks that have identical, relative
velocities.

To be very clear, the paradox of the twins does not in any
way disprove relativity, it in fact proves relativity since it
was relativity that predicted this paradox. What the paradox of
the twins does is prove that relativity requires an absolute
reference frame in order for it to physically work.

To repeat: The normal assumption assumed by most people is
that relativity requires all velocity to be totally relative. We
now have data that shows that velocity is not always relative for
all situations.

THE PARADOX OF THE TWINS

What is this paradox? Simply stated, you take two twins who
are exactly the same age. One is sent on a very fast trip to a
distant point, and as soon as he arrives at this point he returns
home. When he returns, he will be biologically younger than the
twin who remained at home.

What is the paradox? In special relativity, the biological
age, the rate of the "local" clock of a person, must be
independent of the motions of all other objects. It is
acceptable that if an object moved relative to another, that they
might each see the other's clock change in their rates, but if
every thing is relative, if their velocities are truly relative,
then the changes in rates that they each observe must be
identical.

When only two objects are involved, such as would be for two
twins, then the relative velocity of one twin will always be the
exact same magnitude as the other. This relationship is
absolute. Therefore, if velocities are truly relative, and the
rates of clocks are dependent only on these relative velocities,
then the rates of their clocks cannot deviate under any
condition, and their ages can never differ. Yet, the mathematics
show that their ages will differ, and this has in fact been found
to be true.

Something must give. You cannot continue to say that
velocity, and thus time, are totally relative, and yet have twins
who do not remain the same years of age.

HOW DOES PRESENT SCIENCE EXPLAIN THIS PARADOX?

Historically, this problem has been considered many times.
Many claimed that this was not a special relativity problem, and
the real answer would be found in General Relativity. Of course,
none of these people could explained it by General Relativity.
It was only a hope that it would eventually be explained. This
was now been fully discredited. Some claimed that the end
points, where acceleration is present, would provide the answer.

Again, it has been shown that this provides no solution.
Every attempt to explain this paradox has failed. Today it is
simply accepted as a paradox and, apparently, not to be
understood by man. It is no longer worried about. But we cannot
hide our heads in the sand and ignore what is obvious. It is a
true paradox: there is something that is amiss in our assumptions
or understandings that should be answered.

THE ANSWER.

In the absolute reference frame concept, the answer is
clear. If these two twins start out at rest in the absolute
reference frame, it is obvious that the twin that made the trip
would age less than the one who stayed at absolute rest. But to
speak more generally, the two twins can start out in any moving
frame. The twin who "remains at home" merely keeps a constant
absolute velocity. The twin that moves out to some distant
point, may either increase his absolute velocity, or stay the
same, or even decrease his absolute velocity, it would totally
depend on the original absolute motion of his original reference
frame and in the direction and magnitude he takes relative to
that original motion.

The point that can be made, however, is that no matter what
these original relationships might be, in either the outgoing
trip, or in the return trip, in one or the other or both, the
twin who "makes the trip," in at least one of these legs of his
trip, has to have a faster absolute velocity than the twin that
does not make the trip. Any quick mathematical check will show,
because of the non-linearity of the clock rate function, that
that twin will be younger than the one that did not change his
velocity. The absolute "math" is the exact same as the non-
absolute math, but now we have intellectual understanding of why
it occurs. It is important to make our mathematical facts match
with our intellectual understandings.

To restate the logic or proof one more time: In the
relativity where velocity is accepted to be purely relative,
there are no fundamental explanations why one twin ages
differently than the other. The math tells us which twin ages
and the math tells us how much, but the "why" does not exist.
When we consider an absolute reference, then and only then do we
have a full answer. With the absolute reference, we know which
twin ages, we know how much it ages, and we know why it is that
twin and not the other. The paradox has been totally removed.

CONCLUSION

There is an absolute reference frame. In hindsight, it is
necessary that there is a reference upon which the motions of all
photons are based. It is necessary to have a reference upon
which the lengths of all rulers are based. It is necessary to
have a reference upon which the rates of all clocks are governed.
To believe in anything else is to believe in some kind of
impossible inter-relationship that occurs by no possible means.
It would be mindless to not consider the absolute reference
approach.

Restatement of required assumptions:

Let there be an absolute reference frame in which:

All photons, from any and all moving or stationary sources,
have the absolute velocity, c.

The lengths of all "rulers," in the direction of their
absolute motion, v, contract by a ratio of

1
2 -
v 2
( 1 - - ) .
2
c

and

The rates of all clocks are governed by the same ratio
factor as the contraction of rulers.

If the above laws were followed, the physics would be
exactly the same as in special relativity, both in the absolute
frame, and in all inertial frames within it. This assumes. of
course, that each inertial frame sets up a ruler grid and uses
local clocks and synchronize these clocks as required by the
rules of relativity.

Is there anything hard to accept in the above set of
assumptions? No! They are essentially the assumptions that we
already make. In the absolute frame, we just assign these
functions to be governed by one reference frame only. The number
of functions and the nature of these function remain identical.
Therefore, no real problems are introduced by assuming that an
absolute reference exists.

In terms of the math, the above equations are not the only
possible choices, but so far the results of the tests that have
been made do not yet suggest changing any of these original
choices.